Author
Topic: EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS (Read 93083 times)

I know their sales numbers on aggregate haven't been stellar, but in general, the company wouldn't be here very long if it couldn't course correct as needed.

A large enterprise like Canon doesn't just disappear because they can soften the fall and distribute profits and losses between divisions. They can survive quite a long time without good sales if their shares don't plummet and there's a hostile takeover. And Canon just has the advantage of a user base that is tied to their system, so they are quite safe unless they completely screw up.

That's why it takes them so long to correct a flawed strategy in one segment like dlsr - in a smaller company the execs would get fired much faster enabling changes. But if they are really persistent to ignore reality they'll indeed go the way of Kodak and all other long-gone electronics companies.

I don't feel the Kodak analogy is appropriate b/c that's a much more stark black/white scenario of accepting change in a changing world. That analogy would only be appropriate if Canon demonstrated true head-in-the-sand behavior, like (hypothetically) if they decided to never enter the mirrorless market.

FWIW, I liken Canon/Nikon to Toyota/Honda in that they have a mature, segmented market with very set expectations, pricing strategies, and a conservative take on innovation. Then, Sony, who I liken to Nissan/Kia/Hyundai, is trying to create new markets, or offer 'tweener' products that straddle two segments. They play a combination of innovation / disruptive offerings to shake things up in an attempt to rope in mindshare and proponents. I personally think they should be looked at more seriously by the photography community, b/c the disruptive gameplan is pretty brave -- that fixed lens FF compact (RX1, I think?) is a bold offering.

I wonder how much of it is just a calculated, multi-year gamble by Canon -- where they said, let's keep raising prices until the consumer market really revolts. then we can always cut prices down.

many people have mentioned how Canon is acting a little bit like Apple in trying to really stretch out their profit margins. while we complain that Canon doesn't currently offer a complete package of top technology (yes, the sensors are behind Nikon, yes, Canon still likes to be late to the game with AF upgrades), Canon does have a high reputation in the consumer market that's been built up over a long time, so there's a lot of prestige that they can lean on. plus, we tend to exaggerate how big the differences between Nikon and Canon are because, as gear heads, that's all we think about all day.

I don't blame Canon for trying to shore up profit margins while they can, because the alternative is a race to the bottom, and while that spells short term gain for the consumer, it's a long term disaster for the industry. that being said, I do think a lot of the current prices are too stiff for the general populace, even the big prosumer crowd. so I'll vote with my wallet and wait to see the prices come down, which I do believe they will. it may mean waiting quite a few years -- people also seem to forget that, more often than not, a lens' lifespace can go decades, not just a couple years, and thus I expect Canon's pricing strategies also span multiple years.

it is dubbed hybrid is just because the lens is almost a macro (0.7 macro factor...wow)

Agree agree agree. That's the only arrow in the quiver (along with better IQ, to be fair) that might justify this $1800 price from the translation.

I'm probably in the minority here that I'm more likely to bring my relatively small and light 100L macro over my 70-200 F/2.8L IS II on trips. So if this magnification is true, this could become an epic kill-two-birds-with-one-not-so-big-or-heavy-stone sort of lens for travel.

i dont think that taking the japanese price and converting on other currency is a good thing...the jap prices are generally higher than other countries

and yes...i agree with you...haveing a standard zoom lens that is able to do some macro works is a very nice thing

What the point of having a 24-70 4L IS AND 24-105 4L IS in the line-up? Isn't it a no-brainer to just get the 105?

Wouldn't be a no-brainer thinking the 24-70 f/4 would have better optic quality than an older lens? Sorry if I sound sarcastic, but it is the truth. And most people wouldn't need the extra reach.

Who are 'most people'? Maybe you. Not me.

+1 for the extra reach comment. I for one do need the reach. Plus we do not know the IQ of the new lens. While I believe it will be really good I am not sure about quality control. So let's not play Canon representatives. If the new lens is really good, buyers will say so. Not fans who haven't bought it.

Short focal lengths? What about 50mm to 70mm? I don't think that's short at all. It'll especially be useful on the long end. And the IS will also be useful with the "slow" f/4 aperture. Even if you're getting a shutter speed of 1/10 at the 24mm wide end, wouldn't it be nice to have IS then? The IS will also certainly help the macro shooting. So it serves a great purpose on this lens, I think.

The choice between this and the f/2.8 should be clear = pro wedding shooters who need the speed and bokeh will go for the 2.8, hobbyists and video shooters will go for the f/4.

Short focal lengths? What about 50mm to 70mm? I don't think that's short at all. It'll especially be useful on the long end. And the IS will also be useful with the "slow" f/4 aperture. Even if you're getting a shutter speed of 1/10 at the 24mm wide end, wouldn't it be nice to have IS then? The IS will also certainly help the macro shooting. So it serves a great purpose on this lens, I think.

The choice between this and the f/2.8 should be clear = pro wedding shooters who need the speed and bokeh will go for the 2.8, hobbyists and video shooters will go for the f/4.

Correct me if i'm wrong but what's the point of IS in such short focal lengths?

With the release of 24-70 f/4L IS it will be a tough choice for some to decide with the 2.8 non IS version, what do you think?

@Aputure (nice blog, btw) -- there has been a healthy 50-75% of us on this forum that IS is not needed on wide glass, and that speed should always Me_Me_Me IS w.r.t. Canon's spec decisions. I cannot discern if this is due to...

Classical thinking -- the old rule of thumb that you need 1/[focal length] for shutter speed, and therefore, wide glass needs IS less than long glass.

Value thinking -- why should we pony up extra for IS when it's not truly a must, I got by without it for years, etc.

In the 'I hope the new announcement is the lens I want' / 'Canon only makes so many lenses' department, it could be sour grapes, frustration, incredulity etc. that Canon chose IS instead of a fast aperture -- see all threads re: these recent lens announcements

A stigma that IS is for beginners, soccer moms, etc. and not for enthusiasts or pros.

...but it's probably a combination of the above.

I personally believe that IS helps at all focal lengths as I am frequently shooting at toxically high ISO without a flash or a tripod. So IS effectively buys me stops, plain and simple.

Now, this is predicated on the thought that the slower glass + IS buys me a virtually faster lens than the current fastest glass (again, I'm rarely shooting moving objects in very low light). This is due to some simple math of:

[# stops of IS] - [# stops slower than the fastest lens in this length] yielding a positive number.

So if, somehow, the proposed new lens had a watered down 2 stop IS or if the aperture was much slower than the fastest alternative, then that IS lens would be less attractive than its fast non-IS alternative.

Keep in mind that IS is improving far more quickly than camera companies have been offering faster glass. Consider that Canon had a constant F/2.8 standard zoom in 1993 and nothing faster has ever been developed. (Some of this is cost and weight, but still, they aren't exactly rushing an F/2 standard zoom out, much to the chagrin of this forum community.)

One wonders if in 10 years, the majority of camera glass will be unbelieveably small/light F/4, F/5.6 glass with 7-8 stops of IS. I know that's heresy for this forum -- who constantly push their gear to get the most out of their shots -- but it's a possibility, right?

One wonders if in 10 years, the majority of camera glass will be unbelieveably small/light F/4, F/5.6 glass with 7-8 stops of IS. I know that's heresy for this forum -- who constantly push their gear to get the most out of their shots -- but it's a possibility, right?

- A

While I don't doubt that IS will eventually make its way down to more lenses in the future, what you suggest would not work for those shooting action. IS elements would also have to be larger to accomodate more travel to counteract lower frequency jitter/shake, which is a sizing issue.

One wonders if in 10 years, the majority of camera glass will be unbelieveably small/light F/4, F/5.6 glass with 7-8 stops of IS. I know that's heresy for this forum -- who constantly push their gear to get the most out of their shots -- but it's a possibility, right?

- A

While I don't doubt that IS will eventually make its way down to more lenses in the future, what you suggest would not work for those shooting action. IS elements would also have to be larger to accomodate more travel to counteract lower frequency jitter/shake, which is a sizing issue.

I'm just arguing that IS technological advancements aren't creating other problems like speeding up zoom lenses might (i.e. back pain from a pickle jar of a lens). Prime example -- compare the 200mm F/2.8L vs. the 200mm F/2L IS: 6-7x the cost and 4x the weight for one stop and IS.

So if I'm Canon, there is a bigger return on investment (and more potential for improvement) in developing 5-, 6-, 7-stop IS technology for all lenses rather than building a 5 lb. F/2 standard zoom. You get more stops for more lenses (I'm presuming that any IS tech breakthroughs are transferable to other designs) rather than chasing a one-off holy grail lens for the 1% of most discriminating users to be sold for weaponized plutonium prices.

So it makes more 'useability' sense that we're seeing IS getting stapled onto modest aperture glass.

35/2.0 is in need of a successor, but like the current one it should really have been a low-cost, decent IQ lens, rather than unnecessary IS at the price of an L lens. A modern 50/1.4 Mk. II with IQ at least equivalent to the Nikon AF-S 50/1.4 at the same price would have been far more urgent.

24-70 is a total mess. Ridiculous that the 2.8 did not come with IS on top of the excellent IQ. Instead of the 14-70/4 Canon should have improved the 24-105 and extended it to 24-120/4.0 IS - with better IQ than Nikon but at the same price.

+1I agree on both. Canon is missing the obvious.

I beg to differ, Canon is following the money -> HD video DSLR + Lens sales. Just wait and see, the 6D will easily outsell the 1DX + 5D3 combined (obviously cheaper camera aimed at the masses), but Canon have done their homework on this, travel photographers like to shoot full-HD video to show to the folks back home, as well as taking stills. Moms + Dads love to shoot HD video of their kids playing sports etc. as well as taking photos, which explains why Canon have included similar AF-tracking in the 6D as the new 5D3. How many CR contributors justify expensive kit on the grounds that they can shoot their kids as well? (Just look at how many 50 1.2L shots are of Photogs progeny)

Canon has pandered too long to the specialist stills photographers, how about the hundreds of thousands of Amateur & Indie videographers who purchased the 5D mk II and made it the success story that it is, plus the millions of buyers who continue to flock to Rebel T2i/T3i/T4i and so on, so they can shoot 1080p @ 24 frames per second and post their cinematic style offerings on YouTube or Vimeo.

Canon is finally moving in the right direction - Video. Let Nikon slash prices and lose profits on high-MP DSLR bodies that have always lagged Canon in the video stakes (remember the Nikon D300s with 720p video vs Canon 7D with 1080p, then the Nikon D7000 had 1080p movie recording but no dedicated Movie button like the 7D). Canon is not just following video/still photography trends, they're shaping them.

Videographers need IS not ISO 25,600

Sorry, but your post is about two years late in terms of Canon's "direction" with video. PROFESSIONAL DSLR video is pretty much DONE with the 5D3/1Dx in terms of video feature advancement. When you have guys who were 5D2 video pioneers like Vince LaForet saying "...hate to say it, but the future is Cinema EOS (Black Magic, etc) for video...no longer HDSLRs," we should listen to them. For amateurs there are a lot of Canon Vixia camcorders that are much better, lighter and many cheaper for HD videos of your kids and travel than a bulky DSLR. Those people aren't buying DSLRs nearly as much anymore. They're buying mirrorless or advanced P&S cameras that shoot HD video (EOS M - hottest camera in Japan right now bar none, G series, Powershot etc) Enter Cinema EOS and the C100, C300, C500 for indies, HD commercial and 4K feature production respectively. Canon's "direction" with professional video is there as well as the 1Dc (as a B/C cam for feature film production alongside the C500 (~4K 'RAW')).

The new primes with IS are definitely a great video choice however the 24-70 f/4 (or ANY lens with a maximum aperture smaller than f/2.8 ) are not in any shape or form targeted at video and that is the lens amongst these two that people seem to be most irritated over. But since you mention "needing" IS; how many great commercials, and short films, let alone feature films, used IS lenses? Shane Hurlbut's 'Act of Valor' grossed over $80 million USD and Drake Doremus' 'Like Crazy' which wasn't even shot FF - it was shot 100% on a Canon 7D - got $4 million USD from Paramount at Sundance for the distribution rights. Neither production used IS lenses. (Yeah, I get it, amateurs and indies don't have access to $10,000 stabilization rigs and motion control cranes etc. to hold their CinePrimes, Cooke and Arri glass) ...but my point is amateurs have been making some nice music videos, commercials and short films for four years on the 5D2 without "needing" IS...and with the new noise performance of the 5D3 sensor, ISO is DEFINITELY a more welcome feature. ISO 6,400 on the 5D3 is as clean if not cleaner video than ISO 800 on the 5D2...which means more shots, less lighting (if any needed at all fot the shot), less assistants, much more creative options - especially for the indie on a budget. Families with kids and travelers have a lot better video options for "showing the people back home" in camcorders with much better IS capabilities than DSLRs.

There will be a 24-70 f/2.8 L II IS soon, just as there are four versions of the 70-200 L (f/2.8 II IS, f/2.8 (non-IS), f/4 (non-IS), f/4 IS), there will be at least three if not four versions of the 24-70 L...and prices will drop (as they always do) and the 24-70 f/2.8 II will drop when the 24-70 f/2.8 IS comes out. Canon didn't "miss any boat", they didn't "ruin the future of the known Milky Way Galaxy"...they introduced a new lens, part of a whole new offering rolling out with optics that will make you wonder why you ever compared this lens to your 24-105 L kit lens. If you haven't shot with the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II or the 24-70 f/2.8 II, go rent one. You'll be wowed by the difference in IQ and AF compared to the previous versions. The 24-70 f/2.8 II is as sharp or sharper than any of the EF primes in that focal range with better overall IQ...IMO. I'm taking a deductive guess that the 24-70 f/4 will similarly blow away the 17-40 f/4 (IMO the sharpest L wide zoom) and 24-105 f/4 in their respective overlap focal lengths. If you love your 24-105 or your current 24-70, then why bother worrying about how much this lens is anyway? It's a down economic market and Canon's infrastructure still isn't back to pre-earthquake capability (nor is Nikon's), Canon is focusing on lower production volumes with products that can give them higher margins. It's that simple. There is a market, it may not be you and most likely isn't you...and that's OK. They will make more lens options available that ARE.

canon rumors FORUM

perfectsavage, I agree entirely with your take on it. however, while you are correct in terms of ACTUAL needs, I think others are also correct in terms of PERCEIVED needs. there are a ton of people on the market for lenses (both amateurs, and prosumers) who talk themselves into thinking that they need IS, whether they do or not. I find that it's typically the folks who really, really shoot seriously for a living that can cut through the crud and say, look, that's just not a feature that makes sense to me for what I'm doing. for everyone else, it tends to be "more letters! more features!"